linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Implement Array BIST test

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 2023 20:38:36 +0100
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.com>, markgross@...nel.org
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        ashok.raj@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        patches@...ts.linux.dev, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com,
        thiago.macieira@...el.com, athenas.jimenez.gonzalez@...el.com,
        sohil.mehta@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Implement Array BIST test

Hi,

On 3/16/23 19:11, Joseph, Jithu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/16/2023 2:59 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
>>
>> After taking a closer look I do see one unrelated issue with this patch
>> sysfs.c: run_test_store() does:
>>
>>         if (!ifsd->loaded)
>>                 rc = -EPERM;
>>         else
>>                 rc = do_core_test(cpu, dev);
>>
>> But AFAICT the loaded check really only applies to the first (intel_ifs_0 device) test type and the 
>> Array BIST test should work fine when loaded is false.
>>
>> So I think that the if (!ifsd->loaded) error check should be moved to 
>> ifs_test_core() ?
>>
> 
> It is possible that I misinterpreted your comment in my earlier reply. (Thanks Tony for pointing it out)

No you were right I was looking at the current code, not the code after this patch-set is applied.

> Yes I think moving the load check into ifs_test_core() is better than doing it in run_test_store()

Ack, doing that is still a cleaner way of dealing with this.

Regards,

Hans